Okay, I just want to make sure I have this correct concerning the two types of selflessness. Hopefully someone can help. So there are the selflessness of self and the selflessness of phenomena. Is it that the selflessness of phenomena refers specifically to the 5 aggregates? You also could have say something like a tree but if the selflessness of phenomena does refer to the five aggregates I would take it that something like a tree would refer to 'form'. Is this correct that the selflessness of phenomena refers to the 5 aggregates or sometimes I read 'that which belongs to a self '.

sangyey wrote:Okay, I just want to make sure I have this correct concerning the two types of selflessness. Hopefully someone can help. So there are the selflessness of self and the selflessness of phenomena. Is it that the selflessness of phenomena refers specifically to the 5 aggregates? You also could have say something like a tree but if the selflessness of phenomena does refer to the five aggregates I would take it that something like a tree would refer to 'form'. Is this correct that the selflessness of phenomena refers to the 5 aggregates or sometimes I read 'that which belongs to a self '.

Hi Sangyey,

I don't see our experts replying so will at least point you to a similar conversation here,

My take is that selflessness of self refers to emptiness of "me" or "I" while selflessness of phenomena (this word has multiple definitions here) refers to our view of phenomena, whether or not we take them to be mind-independent.

yadave wrote:My take is that selflessness of self refers to emptiness of "me" or "I" while selflessness of phenomena (this word has multiple definitions here) refers to our view of phenomena, whether or not we take them to be mind-independent.

Nagarjuna is quoted somewhere as saying something like empty of self and that which belongs to a self. It seems that what belongs to self (the five aggregates) are being referred to as selflessness of phenomena and the self is just this idea we have of ourselves that we exist as a solid, independent entity ( independent of the five aggregates).

As such the Buddhist realists take the 5 aggregates to exist intrinsically (Samsara). However, with the view of emptiness the 5 aggregates are seen to not exist inherently (selflessness of phenomena).

sangyey wrote:Does selflessness of phenomena refer to the five aggregates?

Nagarjuna is quoted somewhere as saying something like empty of self and that which belongs to a self. It seems that what belongs to self (the five aggregates) are being referred to as selflessness of phenomena and the self is just this idea we have of ourselves that we exist as a solid, independent entity ( independent of the five aggregates).

As such the Buddhist realists take the 5 aggregates to exist intrinsically (Samsara). However, with the view of emptiness the 5 aggregates are seen to not exist inherently (selflessness of phenomena).

The five aggregates are phenomena. They belong in the department of chökyi dag (chos kyi bdag), ‘self of phenomena’. But when you look at the five aggregates and think, “Oh, this is me”, that is gangsak gi dag (gang zag gi bdag), ‘self of the person’.Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche – Madhyamakavatara – 1999 teachings

sangyey wrote:Okay, so the only way that self of a person is going to be posited is in relation to the aggregates?

According to Chandra, their is no base for the imputation of self (it is a mistaken idea), but that the notion of self arises dependently through the aggregates.Others, posit a base upon which the self is imputed. Here, the base is the aggregates themselves.Shaun

sangyey wrote:Okay, so the only way that self of a person is going to be posited is in relation to the aggregates?

According to Chandra, their is no base for the imputation of self (it is a mistaken idea), but that the notion of self arises dependently through the aggregates.Others, posit a base upon which the self is imputed. Here, the base is the aggregates themselves.Shaun

The notion of self arises depending on the aggregates, but isn't imputed on the aggregates might be a better way of wording it. Shaun

I was also looking on Rigpawiki and it had that the selflessness of phenomena would be the lack of any intrinsic nature in dharmas. So, i guess if you were looking at this thing called 'conciousness' as an entity itself (as in dharmas) you would see that it has no intrinsic nature but then when discussing the self, notion of a self, or individual identity arising by means of dependently arising conciousness then we would be talking about selflessness of persons.

I think I got it now.

What is the classical definition of Dharmas if anyone knows? Aggregates, elements, sense bases?

sangyey wrote:Okay, I just want to make sure I have this correct concerning the two types of selflessness. Hopefully someone can help. So there are the selflessness of self and the selflessness of phenomena. Is it that the selflessness of phenomena refers specifically to the 5 aggregates? You also could have say something like a tree but if the selflessness of phenomena does refer to the five aggregates I would take it that something like a tree would refer to 'form'. Is this correct that the selflessness of phenomena refers to the 5 aggregates or sometimes I read 'that which belongs to a self '.

There is only one type. The thought "two types" arises depending on primary conditioned thought that there being a person and there being phenomena other than persons.But since "person" cannot be found "other-than-persons" cannot be found either.

Don't perpetuate ignorance through conditioning your mind with philosophies. Just sit and try to find "I" or "the person I am" ...

There is always a question like this: Why arhat doesn't want to come back (such as reborn or rebirth) to samsara to liberate others? Will they go to the hell to liberate all beings in the hell?

They will not. Because arhat see samsara as suffering. They see hell as something difference - full of suffering.

This is a sign they haven't realized emptiness of phenomena.

There is actually no different between nirvana and samsara. Exactly same, empty of essence.

When that person realize the emptiness of phenomena, there is no such thing called suffering. Samsara is not suffering. Samsara is also not happiness. Samsara is free from both suffering and happiness. There is no identity in this samsara. Morever, this samsara and nirvana itself are just a division created by the story of mind.

The person who realize emptiness of phenomena, cannot differentiate between hell and Amitabha pure land or other pure lands. Both just have 1 taste - empty of inherent existence.

Aryadeva mentioned:(174) Whoever sees phenomena as like A collection of mechanical devices And like ILLUSORY BEINGS, Most clearly reaches the excellent state.

(175) For those wo DO NOT ENJOY any objects in cyclic existence It is altogether impossible To take pleasure in this [world].

Which arhat want to stay in this samsara? Have you heard that? This is because they don't realize emptiness of phenomena. Samsara is suffering. Who can enjoy samsara?

But if you realize emptiness of phenomena, Where is samsara? Where is nirvana?

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

sangyey wrote:The phrase 'self and that which belongs to self' does this refer to me and mine respectively? And if so then i assume they would both belong to the classification selflessness of person?

Yes refers to "I and mine" or "me and mine".

"Self"(I) meaning the personal subjective entity or sense that one is located 'here' within-the-body or as-the-body(and sensations/sensory perceptions, thought, memory etc.. which are attributed to embodiment).

And then "that which belongs to self"(mine) referring to appearances which are attributed to self volition; such as "I am doing" "I am seeing" "I am feeling" "my thoughts" "my actions" etc... and imputed objects the self is believed to possess; such as "my body" "my car" "my house" "my arm" etc...

And then these two ways of looking at self, i.e., 'I' or 'mine' belong to selflessness of persons?

Yes but just as TMingyur said above, the implications associated with the selflessness of the person(i.e. subjective self) are directly related to the emptiness or selflessness of other-than-the-person(i.e. the objective world). Because to posit the inherent existence of a "person" or "I", automatically creates everything that is not the "person" or "I". Self goes hand in hand with other, they're mutually interdependent co-arisen concepts. Just as black goes with white, up with down and left with right. So it's a package deal, if you're a self then there is automatically stuff in experience which is not you by default, it's a dichotomy. Removal of the self(subject) automatically removes the world(object). This notion of separation which dominates experience is the basis for suffering, it arises from avidyā or ignorance of our true condition. The purpose of the dharma is to remove this delusion.

There is no self, but when that truth is conceptualized and believed to be true, it is automatically falsified, because the very self that statement and idea attempts to negate is reborn through attachment or aversion to that concept or belief. So seek to comprehend these truths but hold them lightly, and when the time is right let go... apart from attachment and aversion you are unborn.

All dharmas are like reflected images, clear and pure, without turbulence, ungraspable, inexpressible, truly arisen from cause and from action.

when mine exists, me seems to exist. when mine ceases it is because there is no longer a subjective experience of me to have any kind of possession. in my daily experience i realize that i am 'not'.

some of the masters speak of a realizing of selflessness (a relinquishing of me and mine), that fact is however that there has never been any kind of self to realize selflessness, nonetheless this can be experienced... a falling away of 'mine' occurs with the banishing of 'me' in subjective experience.

for example when i look at my hands there is no sense of 'mine' whatsoever; whereas in the past there was.

when emptiness is seen (prajna), then it is known that there is no self in anything whatsoever. reality is only an appearance... ok, albeit a very serious appearance! like a very real and solid hologram.

best wishes, Tom.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus wrote:when mine exists, me seems to exist. when mine ceases it is because there is no longer a subjective experience of me to have any kind of possession. in my daily experience i realize that i am 'not'.

Which means that "emptiness of phenomena" is a proper subset of "emptiness of self". All the rest, debates about what is "really real," are optional, possibly irrelevant.